Exploring the Bidirectional Relationship Between Threats and Goals

Organizations and policy decision makers have long understood that helping consumers pursue their long-term goals promotes consumer welfare and well-being. Their help is often needed as many consumers struggle with goal setting and goal attainment. For example, a common idea regarding certain goals (e.g., status, fitness, happiness) is that they should not be pursued directly, but, rather, should emerge as a fortuitous byproduct of engagement in other activities. This theorizing is, at one level, intuitively appealing. Certain goals, such as trying too explicitly to fall asleep, may be counterproductive. However, most recognize that the likelihood of achieving a goal is greater when one’s behavior is modified in service of that goal. Thus, a person who consciously (re)arranges various aspects of their life (e.g., diet, work habits) to get a good night’s sleep will likely sleep better. This perspective is consistent with the large body of research on goals, which has demonstrated that goal activation increases the likelihood of goal attainment by promoting self-regulation toward the goal (e.g., Kruglanski 1996). However, it also raises the interesting and open question of whether there are predictable factors that moderate when goals may function as intended versus ironically backfire. I contend that illuminating such factors is critical for stakeholders interested in promoting a “better world” by supporting consumers’ goal setting and goal pursuit. I draw from my extant work on self-regulation (e.g., Cannon, Goldsmith, and Roux 2019) to suggest one possible factor. Having a goal requires acknowledging a discrepancy between one’s current level of goal attainment and a more desirable reference point. Thus, one cannot have a goal without acknowledging a negative discrepancy in their current situation. I posit that two primary types of responses follow from acknowledging this discrepancy: a threat response and a self-regulatory response. Next, I offer support for this theorizing, then raise a call for organizations, policy decision makers, and academic researchers to better understand and support these two divergent pathways.